Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India, 2026 INSC 973 (8 September 2026); C.A. No. 12587 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27541 of 2024)
What the case was about
When the government takes private land for a national highway, the law promises the owner not just the value of the land, but also solatium—a statutory condolence payment—and interest on the compensation. The rate at which these benefits are calculated changed significantly under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which is generally more generous than the older Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute here arose because a landowner whose property was acquired for a highway project argued that he was entitled to the enhanced 2013 Act rates, since the final arbitrator’s award was passed after 1 January 2015 (para 2). The Supreme Court had to decide which statute governs the calculation for acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956, when the administrative process stretches across the change in law. The answer affects numerous landowners whose compensation was fixed by authorities before the cut-off but challenged and decided by arbitrators only after it.
The key facts
Manav Bhanot’s land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The acquisition began with a notification under Section 3A published on 7 June 2011, followed by a declaration under Section 3D on 20 January 2012. On 11 July 2014, the Competent Authority determined the compensation payable, and the appellant received part payment on 13 October 2014 but disputed the quantum. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, who passed an award on 13 January 2016. Because this final award came after 1 January 2015—the date on which the 2013 Act was extended to National Highways Act acquisitions—Bhanot contended that the more beneficial 2013 Act should apply. The National Highways Authority of India resisted, arguing that the relevant “award” was the Competent Authority’s 2014 determination, which predated the extension and must therefore be computed under the 1894 Act. The disagreement turned on whether the decisive moment is the first compensation order or the later arbitration.
The questions before the Court
The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran*, who authored the judgment, framed three questions. First, should solatium, interest, and interest on solatium for an acquisition under the National Highways Act be computed under the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act? Second, which document counts as the “award” for attracting the 2013 Act: the Competent Authority’s initial determination under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act, or the subsequent arbitrator’s award under Section 3G(5)? And third, is a landowner entitled to the benefits of the 2013 Act simply because the arbitrator’s award was passed after 1 January 2015?
What the Court decided and why
The Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Bhanot was entitled to solatium, interest, and interest on solatium, but only as computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not the 2013 Act (para 27).
The judgment first placed the dispute in the context of earlier decisions in the Tarsem Singh line of cases. Those rulings had made clear that solatium and interest are payable to landowners whose land was acquired under the National Highways Act even for the period between 1997 and 2015, when a statutory amendment had wrongly denied them these benefits. However, the Court clarified that this did not mean the rates under the 2013 Act would apply retrospectively to every past acquisition. The purpose was to ensure that landowners were not denied solatium and interest altogether during that interregnum, but not to dictate that pre-2015 awards must be computed under the 2013 Act (para 13).
The decisive step was identifying the “award.” The Court held that under the NH Act, the determination made by the Competent Authority under Section 3G(1) is the true “award,” analogous to the Collector’s award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act (para 19). The arbitrator’s subsequent determination under Section 3G(5) is merely in the nature of a civil court deciding a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. Therefore, the date of the Competent Authority’s initial order—not the later arbitrator’s decision—is the touchstone for deciding whether the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act apply.
The Court noted that the 2013 Act itself came into effect on 1 January 2014, but its beneficial compensation provisions were extended to National Highways Act acquisitions only from 1 January 2015 by an Ordinance. Consequently, if the Competent Authority’s “award” was made before that date, solatium and interest must be computed under the older 1894 Act, even if the acquisition proceedings or arbitration continued beyond 2015 (para 13).
Since the Competent Authority had determined Bhanot’s compensation on 11 July 2014—well before the 1 January 2015 cut-off—the 2013 Act could not govern the computation (para 24). The Court also rejected Bhanot’s reliance on a Ministry notification, finding that it did not aid his case.
The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority to compute and disburse the statutory benefits under the 1894 Act (para 27).
Why it matters
The judgment provides much-needed certainty for landowners, the NHAI, and acquisition authorities nationwide. By confirming that the Competent Authority’s initial determination under Section 3G(1) is the relevant “award,” the Court supplied a clear, single-point test for deciding whether the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act governs the computation of solatium and interest (para 19). Landowners can no longer argue that a delayed arbitrator’s award shifts the statutory goalposts. At the same time, the ruling reaffirms the principle from the Tarsem Singh line of cases: solatium and interest cannot be denied entirely to landowners whose property was acquired during the 1997–2015 interregnum (para 13). The remand directs the authorities to actually pay what is due, ensuring the litigation ends with disbursal rather than further procedural drift. For highway projects across the country, the decision protects administrative finality while respecting the legislative choice to apply enhanced compensation rates only from a defined cut-off date.